I woke up this morning to learn from the BBC that the major parties leaders are keen to move on from this hung parliament stuff and get stuck into policy for the rest of the election campaign. Kids are today's theme for Gordon, crime for Dave, the NHS for Nick.

That's very good of them and good of the Beeb to tell us, though the news was relegated from item No 1 to No 4 – behind Lloyds bank's profits, Obama's problems and oil – between 7am and 8 on Radio 4.

Only a few days ago Gordon Brown was trying to drum up support for a complaint against the media in general for ignoring policy in favour of the beauty contest arising from debate-driven Cleggmania.

It's rarely a good idea to launch generalised attacks on the media – which always gives itself the last word – and usually even less smart to launch specific ones unless they're being reinforced by a lawyer's letter. Tony Blair even bottled an overdue attack on the Daily Mail in his farewell speech on the "feral beasts" of Fleet Street.

So Brown's campaign to get serious sank leaving barely a bubble on the surface of the water so far as I could tell. That doesn't mean he was wrong, of course. Far from it, this time there's been less policy in the papers and on air than I can recall. Unlucky for Brown, policy is his THING.

Today's Guardian has a critique of the Tories' Swedish schools policy – which might topslice local budgets and help the better off – and the Times looks at rival Green policies. The Mail says Labour is "less trusted on the NHS" – you don't say, Mr Dacre? – while the FT has done serious work on where the spending cuts may actually fall when the politicians eventually tell us.

Yet quite a lot of attention has been given to black and Asian candidates – even in the huge all-white swaths of Britain which city folk tend to forget exists. In the major parties it's the white working class which strikes me as conspicuous by its absence. They're around of course, but standing for parties we don't want to mention much.

My theory to explain why this policy-lite campaign is happening this way is not primarily because of the TV debates. True, they have absorbed a lot of energy, but they have also energised a lot of voters, especially young ones, if they remember to vote on 6 May: the polling stations do close rather early for some.

No, the stress on personality and tactics – the ethnic character of candidates even – surely reflects the lack of a serious ideological divide. The main parties will govern in very different ways – making different decisions on cuts, tax and spending priorities – but they are essentially managerial in outlook: similar ends, different means.

What strikes me as bizarre and largely unanalysed is why, after a decade of growing disenchantment with a smooth public schoolboy in No 10 – no, not you, Gordon – the country is squaring up to vote in very large numbers for two more such characters, Dave and Nick, as it voted in London for mayor Boris.

It's class, not gender, sexuality, race or even policy which is – yet again – the great unmentionable in this campaign. What goes wrong? Why has the meritocratic talent pool which emerged from the second world war ceased to replenish itself?

I have just heard a discussion on Radio 4's Today programme about the barriers still facing women in politics, with all the usual suspects, Harriet Harman and Shirley Williams included, bleating. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty actually said of the leader's coteries: "I have yet to see a woman in one of these very tight groups in any political party." It's as if Margaret Thatcher never happened – much as Harman's list of great 20th century women suggested last year when it omited her. Only Ann Widdecombe, contrarian as ever, suggested it's easier being a woman in some ways. So it is. Harman is, after all, deputy leader of the Labour party. Can I risk adding that she's also a bit posh.